{"id":15121,"date":"2011-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011"},"modified":"2016-11-03T16:07:48","modified_gmt":"2016-11-03T10:37:48","slug":"pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: J.B.Pardiwala,<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/3934\/2011\t 38\/ 38\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 3934 of 2011\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPRADEEP\nN SHARMA - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nIH SYED for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with MR\nPRAKASH JANI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MS SANGEETA VISHEN, APP for\nRespondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/06\/2011 \n\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
\tThis
\nis an Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
\npreferred by the accused-applicant, an I.A.S. officer, praying for
\nregular bail in connection with I-CR No.9\/2010 registered with State
\nCID Crime Rajkot Zone Police Station for the offences punishable
\nunder Sections 217, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of
\nIPC.\n<\/p>\n
Avarice is a
\ncommon frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole’s famous pronouncement
\nthat all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism
\nthat it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more
\nthan two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Among a
\npeople generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more
\nrecent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there
\nwas corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very
\ndangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has,
\nin respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the
\nworld over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to
\nbe influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the
\nprospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf
\neven a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of
\ncorruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the
\ntruth, that it is  the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity
\nby highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this
\ncountry. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively
\narrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is
\ncorruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace
\ngreater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and
\norder, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons
\nof the Government and of the political parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\ncase of the prosecution in brief can be summarised as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\taccused-applicant is an I.A.S. officer serving with the State of
\n\tGujarat past couple of years. In the year 2003 he was posted as
\n\tCollector and District Magistrate at Bhuj. He remained Collector and
\n\tDistrict Magistrate of Bhuj upto 3rd July 2006. During his tenure as
\n\tCollector at Bhuj, three companies, namely, (1) M\/s.Wellspun India
\n\tLimited, (2) M\/s.Wellspun Power and Steel Limited, and (3)
\n\tM\/s.Wellspun Gujarat Limited, preferred applications for allotment
\n\tof lands bearing Survey No.652, 692, 665, 667, 668, 670, 684, 692,
\n\t890 and few other survey numbers situated at village Varshamedi,
\n\tTaluka Anjar, District Bhuj.\n<\/p>\n
\tPrima
\n\tfacie, it appears that this demand for the allotment was on the
\n\tbasis of one resolution bearing No.JMN\/392003\/454\/A(R.D.) issued by
\n\tthe State of Gujarat dated 6th June 2003 simplifying the process of
\n\tallotment of Government land for industrial growth in the District
\n\tof Kutch, which was severely affected by earthquake.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tappears that for this purpose, a District Land Valuation Committee
\n\twas constituted. The Committee
\n\tcomprised of the following persons:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)
\nDistrict Collector;\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)
\nDistrict Development Officer;\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\nDeputy Town Planner; and<\/p>\n
(d)
\nResident Deputy Collector as Member \tSecretary.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tappears that meetings were convened in this regard from time to time
\n\tand in the meeting held on 20th July 2004, the subject of allotment
\n\tof land to Wellspun Company was one of the items on the agenda as
\n\tAgenda No.5. In the meeting, it was decided that land bearing Survey
\n\tNo.890 at village Varshamedi, Taluka Anjar, District Bhuj
\n\tadmeasuring 20,234 sq.meters be allotted to M\/s.Wellspun India
\n\tLimited.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis also the case of the prosecution that the price which was fixed
\n\tfor the allotment of the land was at the rate of Rs.15=00 per
\n\tsq.meter.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis the case of the prosecution that the accused-applicant, abusing
\n\this position and power as a Collector and with the sole motive to
\n\tfavour the Company and thereby derive monetary gain for himself,
\n\tmade many more allotments in favour of the Company, admeasuring
\n\tlands upto 1,74,014 sq.meters in gross violation of the resolution
\n\tof the State of Gujarat dated 6th June 2003, which empowers the
\n\tCollector to allot only upto 2 hectares of land i.e. 20,000
\n\tsq.meters.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis the case of the prosecution that if the demand is for more than
\n\t20,000 sq.meters then, the proposal has to be placed before the
\n\tState Government in its Revenue Department. It is the State
\n\tGovernment who is empowered thereafter to pass necessary orders
\n\tfixing the price of the land for the purpose of allotment.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis alleged that huge parcels of land were allotted at a very meagre
\n\tprice of Rs.15=00 per sq.meter. It is the case of the prosecution
\n\tthat when subsequently other proposals for allotment of lands were
\n\tforwarded to the State Government, the allotments were made at the
\n\trate of Rs.78=00 per sq.meter, as according to the case of the
\n\tprosecution, the appropriate rate was Rs.78=00 and not Rs.15=00.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis also the case of the prosecution that the orders of allotments
\n\twhich were passed by the accused-applicant in favour of the Company
\n\tWellspun at the rate of Rs.15=00 per sq.meter were never sent to the
\n\tState Government in its Revenue Department for its information and
\n\tapproval and, thereby, the accused-applicant kept the State
\n\tGovernment in dark about the illegal allotment of huge parcels of
\n\tland at the rate of Rs.15=00 per sq.meter.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis alleged that in this manner by adopting corrupt
\n\tpractice the accused-applicant is responsible for causing loss to
\n\tthe public exchequer and revenue to the tune of Rs.1,04,61,622=00
\n\tand loss of stamp duty to the tune of Rs.15,69,240=00.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis also the case of the prosecution that in the year 2004, the
\n\taccused-applicant had obtained a mobile sim card bearing
\n\tNo.9925199799 in the name of one Shri Vasim Chakrovarty, Vice
\n\tPresident of the Company Wellspun. This mobile was recovered from
\n\tthe possession of the accused-applicant and the record indicates
\n\tthat the bill amount of the mobile was being paid by the Company
\n\tWellspun. For the period between 2004 till 2009 when this mobile was
\n\tused by the accused-applicant,
\n\tthe total aggregate amount towards the bill was to the tune of
\n\tRs.2,24,036=00. It is the case of the prosecution that this amount
\n\twas paid by the Company.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis also alleged in the F.I.R. that so far as the allegations of
\n\tusing the mobile sim card which was in the name of the Vice
\n\tPresident of the Company and the amount of Rs.2,24,036=00 paid by
\n\tthe Company towards the bill for the usage of the mobile is
\n\tconcerned, an independent offence has been registered against the
\n\taccused-applicant with Rajkot Zone Police Station vide I-CR
\n\tNo.3\/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13(1)(b)
\n\tread with Section 13(2) of
\n\tthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo
\nput it more precisely and very briefly, the case of the prosecution
\nappears to be that the accused-applicant, in his capacity as
\nCollector, Bhuj at the relevant point of time, joined hands with a
\nCompany named Wellspun and, with the sole intention of gaining
\nmonetary benefits for himself, allotted huge parcels of lands in
\nfavour of the Company at a meagre rate of Rs.15=00 per sq.meter,
\nwhereas, the actual rate was Rs.78=00 per sq.meter and, thereby
\ncorruptly favoured the Company causing loss to the public exchequer
\nand revenue of the State to the tune of Rs.1,20,30,842=00. It is
\nalleged that in this manner the accused-applicant has committed
\noffences punishable under Sections 217, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 read
\nwith Section 120B of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore
\nI proceed to consider the plea of regular bail on merits, it would be
\nexpedient at this stage to narrate few facts which would be relevant
\nfor better adjudication of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
(a)
\nIt appears that prior to the registration of the present offence, one
\nmore offence was registered against the accused-applicant for the
\nsame charges. This offence has been registered as CR.M.Case No.1\/2008
\nlodged with State C.I.D. Crime, Rajkot Zone Police Station. The
\nF.I.R. so far as the CR.M.Case No.1\/2008 is concerned, it is dated
\n20th February 2008. In the prosecution of CR.M.Case No.1\/2008 the
\nallegations are almost at par. In that case also, the case of the
\nprosecution is that the allotments were made contrary to the
\nGovernment Resolution abusing the power and position as Collector,
\ncausing huge revenue loss to the State Government. Record reveals
\nthat in connection with CR.M.Case No.1\/2008, the accused-applicant
\nwas arrested on 6th January 2010 and ultimately he has been ordered
\nto be released on bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 6th
\nSeptember 2010.\n<\/p>\n
(b)
\nRecord reveals that second in point of time one another F.I.R. came
\nto be lodged on 31st March 2010 for offences punishable under
\nSections 7, 11, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(b) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act, 1988 with State C.I.D. Crime, Rajkot Zone Police
\nStation. It appears that in CR.M.Case No.1\/2008 also there were
\ncharges for the offence punishable under the Corruption Act. However,
\non 1st April 2010, the Investigating Officer preferred an application
\nbefore the Special Court, Anti-Corruption Bureau for deleting
\nSections 7, 11, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(b) of the Corruption
\nAct from the F.I.R. i.e. M.Case No.1\/2008. Prima facie, it appears
\nthat this step was taken as prosecution thought fit to file a
\nseparate F.I.R. in this regard on 31st March 2010 being I-CR
\nNo.3\/2010. At this stage, it would not be out of place to mention
\nthat this F.I.R. is on the footing that the accused-applicant as a
\npublic servant misused his position and power and was found using the
\nmobile phone with a sim card running in the name of the Vice
\nPresident of the Company and the bill amount of the mobile phone to
\nthe tune of more than Rs.2 lakhs upto 2009 was also being paid by the
\nCompany. Again here I may mention that these allegations are part and
\nparcel of the present F.I.R. also i.e. I-CR No.9\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\nThereafter, as soon as on 6th September 2010 the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt granted bail to the accused-applicant in connection with
\nCR.M.Case No.1\/2008, within 19 days the same Investigating Agency
\nregistered the present F.I.R. i.e. I-CR No.9\/2010 lodged with State
\nC.I.D. Crime, Rajkot Zone Police Station for the offences punishable
\nunder Sections 217, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of
\nIPC.\n<\/p>\n
(d)
\nLast in point of time, the fourth F.I.R. came to be registered on
\nsimilar charges where the Company is different but the accusations
\nare same i.e. I-CR No.1\/2011 with State C.I.D. Crime, Rajkot Zone
\nPolice Station for the offences punishable under Sections 217, 409
\nread with Section 120 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
-:\n<\/p>\n
Contentions on behalf of the accused-applicant :-\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tcounsel for the accused-applicant, to make good his case for bail,
\n\twould submit that the
\n\tprosecution against the accused-applicant is tainted with mala
\n\tfides and is
\n\tnothing but to harass the accused-applicant to wreck personal
\n\tvengeance. He would submit that as a matter of fact, after the
\n\tentire region of Kutch was destroyed by earthquake in the year 2001,
\n\tthe Government, as a matter of policy, decided to see that big
\n\tindustrial houses come at Kutch-Bhuj
\n\tfor the purpose of setting up industries. He would submit that the
\n\tproject of Wellspun was worth Rs.8,000 crores. He would submit that
\n\tthe Government has gained a lot with these industries who have put
\n\tup their plants, and as on today, are functional. He would also
\n\tsubmit that the Chief Minister of the State himself had come to
\n\tinaugurate the new Wellspun plant at the relevant point of time and
\n\tallotment at the end of the State Government to the Company is about
\n\t48 acres of land. He would submit that as a matter of fact it was at
\n\tthe instance of the Chief Minister of the State that the Chairman of
\n\tthe Company was invited to invest at Kutch-Bhuj by setting up
\n\tindustry.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould submit that each and every allotment was as per the rules and
\n\tregulations. He would submit that as a matter of fact each and every
\n\tallotment order which was passed, a copy of which was forwarded to
\n\tthe State Government at the relevant point of time i.e. in the year
\n\t2004. In spite of the knowledge about the allotment of the parcels
\n\tof land to the Company at the rate of Rs.15=00 per sq.meter, no
\n\tobjection at any point of time was taken by the State Government in
\n\tthis regard and abruptly after a period of about six years, the
\n\tState Government has raised this issue of so-called arbitrary and
\n\tillegal allotment of land in favour of the Company.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tcounsel would submit that there is complete misreading and
\n\tmisinterpretation of the Government Resolution dated 6th June 2003,
\n\twhich has been heavily relied upon by the prosecution. He would
\n\tsubmit that the allegations in the F.I.R. to the effect interpreting
\n\tthe Government Resolution that if the allotments are to be made to
\n\tone and the same party by way of more than one application then all
\n\tapplications are to be treated as one by the Collector, is
\n\terroneous. It is submitted that in the Government Resolution dated
\n\t6th June 2003 no such clarification has been made.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tcounsel would further submit that the allegations were made by the
\n\taccused-applicant in the year 2004 and the Government Resolution
\n\tfixing the price at the rate of Rs.78=00 per sq.meter was issued on
\n\t6th August 2005. Such Government Resolution cannot have
\n\tretrospective effect. He would submit that the procedure to fix the
\n\tprice has been explained in the Government Resolution dated 6th June
\n\t2003, which states that the District Land Valuation Committee would
\n\tstrictly go as per the rate fixed by the Town Planner and the
\n\tCommittee would be empowered to either decrease or increase the
\n\tprice. Initially, the Committee fixed the price at the rate of
\n\tRs.30=00 per sq.meter but thereafter, on the request of the Company,
\n\tagain on 20th July 2004 a meeting of the Committee was convened and
\n\tafter due deliberations the price was fixed at the rate of Rs.15=00
\n\tper sq.meter. He would submit that such orders were never challenged
\n\tand have attend finality.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tcounsel would submit that the prosecutions which have been initiated
\n\tagainst the accused-applicant are for the acts alleged to have been
\n\tcommitted six years back when the accused-applicant was Collector of
\n\tDistrict of Bhuj. The State Government kept absolutely quiet for all
\n\tthese years. Abruptly, at the instance of fourth or fifth successor
\n\tin office, who is said to have brought to the notice of the State
\n\tGovernment about the mode, method and manner of allotment that the
\n\tGovernment has decided to initiate prosecution against the present
\n\taccused-applicant.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel
\n\twould further submit that first in point of time when the
\n\taccused-applicant was arrested on 6th January 2010 in connection
\n\twith CR.M.Case No.1\/2008 and the accused-applicant remained in
\n\tjudicial custody for a period of about nine months. Hon’ble Supreme
\n\tCourt granted bail vide order dated 6th September 2010.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel
\n\thas vehemently submitted that the prosecuting agency was keeping a
\n\tclose watch on the proceedings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and no
\n\tsooner the Supreme Court granted bail on 6th September 2010, once
\n\tagain with a view to seeing that the accused-applicant is put behind
\n\tthe bars, third F.I.R. came to be lodged within 19 days i.e. on 25th
\n\tSeptember 2010.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tcounsel would also submit and has requested the Court to take
\n\tcognizance of the fact that before the F.I.R. of the present case
\n\twas registered on 25th September 2010, a separate F.I.R. on 31st
\n\tMarch 2010 was registered against the accused-applicant for the
\n\toffences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13(1)(b) read with Section
\n\t13(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel
\n\thas further submitted that in the present case there is no forgery.
\n\tAccording to him, no offences punishable under Sections 465, 467,
\n\t468, 471 are said to have been committed. He would submit that there
\n\tis nothing on record to even remotely suggest that any false
\n\tdocument within the definition of Section 464 of IPC has been
\n\tprepared for the purpose of commission of offence. He would submit
\n\tthat the foundation of this F.I.R. is the usage of the mobile sim
\n\tcard running in the name of the Vice President of the Wellspun
\n\tCompany and the payment of bill of the mobile to the tune of more
\n\tthan Rs.2 lakhs. He would submit that these allegations are also a
\n\tpart and parcel of the present F.I.R. However, till this date, the
\n\taccused-applicant has not been arrested in connection with I-CR
\n\tNo.3\/2010 registered with the State C.I.D. Crime, Rajkot Zone Police
\n\tStation. Counsel submits that the strategy of the prosecuting agency
\n\tis very plain and clear. No sooner the accused-applicant gets bail
\n\tin one offence, immediately thereafter he is arrested in another
\n\toffence. Whereas, there is no justification for not effecting the
\n\tarrest of the accused at a point of time no sooner the F.I.R. is
\n\tregistered.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tcounsel would further submit that so far as the present offence is
\n\tconcerned, the accused-applicant is in judicial custody since 14th
\n\tFebruary 2011. He would submit that all offences are magistrate
\n\ttriable offences and the trial will take a considerable long period
\n\tof time before it commences and concludes. He would submit that the
\n\tinvestigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed and,
\n\ttherefore, there is no apprehension of accused tampering with the
\n\tprosecution witnesses, more particularly, when the entire
\n\tprosecution is based on documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel
\n\twould further submit that there is no material worth the name to
\n\teven remotely suggest that the accused would not be available for
\n\ttrial.\n<\/p>\n
\tPer
\ncontra, learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi appearing with
\nlearned Govt. Pleader Mr.Prakash Jani has put forward the following
\ncontentions :-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tfirst and the foremost contention is to the effect that as on today
\n\tthere are as many as four to five independent prosecutions pending
\n\tagainst the accused-applicant. He would submit that the applicant
\n\tnot only colluded and joined hands with Wellspun Company for
\n\tarbitrary allotment of land but he has allotted lands arbitrarily
\n\tand contrary to the policy of the State Government in favour of one
\n\tanother company also named Shri Saw Pipes Limited, causing loss to
\n\tthe public exchequer and revenue of the State Government to the tune
\n\tof crores of rupees. Learned Advocate General would submit that the
\n\taccused-applicant, a high ranking I.A.S. officer was expected to
\n\tprotect the interest of the State Government in all respects. He
\n\tabused his position and power by indulging in acts of corruption. He
\n\tsubmits that this is a case of economic offence which brings about
\n\ttotal imbalance in the economy of the country, which has the effect
\n\tof making life of people economically weaker and miserable. He would
\n\tsubmit that such economic offences are treated worse than murders
\n\tbeing committed in this country. He would submit that this is not
\n\tone solitary incident of corruption or one solitary offence
\n\tregistered against the accused-applicant. He submits that there are
\n\tin all four to five prosecutions lodged against the
\n\taccused-applicant. At the relevant point of time when the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court granted bail on 6th September 2010, no other offences
\n\twere registered except the offence under the Prevention of
\n\tCorruption Act being I-CR No.3\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that in the present case, initially, there were
\n\tfour applications preferred by the companies demanding the grant of
\n\t20,234 sq.meters of land under each of the applications, but with
\n\treference to only one survey number viz.890. These applications were
\n\tdated as under:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)
\n  27.3.2004;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)
\n 27.3.2004;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)
\n31.3.2004;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)
\n 31.3.2004.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould submit that though there were four applications preferred to
\n\tabove in respect of land of one single survey number, totalling to
\n\tthe tune of 80,936 sq.meters, a decision for the grant of the said
\n\tland was required to be taken at the level of the State Government.
\n\tHowever, in the instant case, a communication dated 13th May 2004
\n\twas circulated for holding the meeting of District Land Valuation
\n\tCommittee on 18th May 2004 along with agenda\/karya suchi\/valuation
\n\tdecision. Interestingly, in the said agenda, only one piece of land,
\n\ti.e. 20,234 sq.meters of Survey No.890 under one application was
\n\treferred to for the determination of the valuation.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that on the date of the meeting, i.e. on 18th
\n\tMay 2004, it appears that the applicant approved the rate of Rs.30\/-
\n\tper sq.meter in respect of 80,936 sq.meters of land of Survey No.890
\n\treferred to in the aforesaid four applications.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that consequently, the Company was informed
\n\tvide in all by four communications, all dated 7th July 2004 (pp.306
\n\tto 309 of the paper book) for making the payment of the price of the
\n\tland at the rate of Rs.30=00 per sq.meter.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that on 19th July 2004 (p.310 of the paper
\n\tbook), a further communication was circulated for holding the
\n\tmeeting of the District Land Valuation Committee on 20th July 2004
\n\talong with agenda\/karya suchi\/ valuation decision, since the
\n\taforesaid rate was not found favour with the Company.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that the applicant appears to have called for
\n\tone of the copies of the form of the Brief Note for reaching the
\n\tdecision on valuation of the earlier meeting dated 18th May 2004
\n\twherein, at his back, the applicant unilaterally and unceremoniously
\n\tfixed the rate of very lands admeasuring 80,936 sq.meters (20,234
\n\tsq.meters under each of four applications) at Rs.15=00 on 20th July
\n\t2004.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis further submitted that it was in view of the aforesaid
\n\tdevelopments that last column in the agenda for the meeting dated
\n\t20th July 2004 (p.311 of the paper book) came to be filled as
\n\tRs.15=00 against the land in question.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould submit that the aforesaid development clearly suggests that
\n\tthe applicant dishonestly or fraudulently altered an important
\n\tdocument in the proceedings of the meeting of the District Land
\n\tValuation Committee, without lawful authority and that too after it
\n\twas executed once by him along with the other members of the
\n\tCommittee on 18th May 2004. As per the provisions of Section 464 of
\n\tIPC, such an act on the part of the applicant amounts to ‘making a
\n\tfalse document’. Consequently, as per Section 463 of IPC, the said
\n\tact amounts to forgery because as per the said section, whoever
\n\tmakes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury or
\n\twith intent to commit fraud, is said to have committed forgery. In
\n\tother words, the said action amounts to forgery of valuable security
\n\tunder Section 467.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that thereafter, four communications, all dated
\n\t22nd July 2004 came to be addressed to the Company [without
\n\tcancelling the earlier communications dated 7th July 2004 (pp.306 to
\n\t309 of the paper book)] calling upon the Company to make the payment
\n\tfor the lands in question at the rate of Rs.15=00 per sq.meter
\n\t(pp.312 to 315 of the paper book).\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould submit that thereafter, four orders dated 10th August 2004 (in
\n\tcase of three orders) and 13th August 2004 came to be passed in
\n\trespect of 20,234 sq.meters of land under each of the aforesaid
\n\tapplications, all belonging to Survey No.890 (pp.316 to 325 of the
\n\tpaper book).\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that thereafter, there were four more
\n\tapplications, all dated 11th June 2004 for lands admeasuring 12,141
\n\tsq.meters, 10,117 sq.meters, 20,234 sq.meters and 20,234 sq.meters
\n\tof Survey Nos.652, 692, 665\/1 and 679 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that it clearly appears from the notings in the
\n\toffice file of the office of the District Collector that the main
\n\treason behind deciding the valuation of the land without even
\n\treferring the same to the District Land Valuation Committee was
\n\tinsistence on the part of the Company to have the land as early as
\n\tpossible, since according to the Company, they wanted to start the
\n\tindustry before 31st December, as otherwise, they would lose
\n\tincentive benefit of exemption of excise duty, etc.<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\thas further submitted that surprisingly, before taking up the
\n\taforesaid applications for value determination in District Land
\n\tValuation Committee, the Collector, vide four communications dated
\n\t21st September 2004, asked the Company to pay value of the land at
\n\tthe rate of Rs.15=00 per sq.meter by referring to the said rate
\n\tdetermination which took place in the Committee’s meeting held on
\n\t20th July 2004. In fact, the applicant could not have done this.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis further submitted that, surprisingly an intimation dated 1st
\n\tOctober 2004 was circulated amongst the members of the Committee for
\n\tholding the meeting on 1st October 2004 itself. The minutes suggest
\n\tthat the rate fixed for the lands in question under the aforesaid
\n\tapplications, was Rs.16=00.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that thereafter, four different allotment
\n\torders, all dated 12th October 2004 came to be passed which refer to
\n\tthe meeting of the Committee held on 20th July 2004. In fact, the
\n\tapplicant should have referred to the meeting of the Committee held
\n\ton 1st October 2004.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould submit that thereafter, vide four communications dated 27th
\n\tOctober 2004, the applicant asked the party to make the payment of
\n\tthe lands at the rate of Rs.16=00 per sq.meter.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that thereafter, three more applications dated
\n\t19th June 2004, 23rd July 2004 and 23rd July 2004 came to be filed
\n\tby the private party wherein, the applicant determined the rate at
\n\tRs.16=00 per sq.meter and Rs.18=00 per sq.meter respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance
\n\thas been placed on two statements dated 14th September 2010 and 24th
\n\tMarch 2011 of Shri Viththaldas M.Thakore, Revenue Clerk in the
\n\toffice of the Mamlatdar, Rapar who was at the relevant time, i.e.
\n\tfrom June 2004 to 2005, a Senior Despatch Clerk working on outward
\n\ttable in the office of the District Collector, Bhuj; statement dated
\n\t29th October 2010 of Shri K.S.Prajapati, Section Officer, Revenue
\n\tDepartment, Gandhinagar and the Communication dated 4th August 2010
\n\t(p.356 of the paper book) from the present Collector, Bhuj to the
\n\tPrincipal Secretary, which suggests that the knowledge of the factum
\n\tof unauthorisedly passing various orders by the applicant was not
\n\tknown to the Government.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that as against the above, the Company also
\n\tpreferred as many as 18 applications demanding total lands
\n\tadmeasuring 3,24,153 sq.meters belonging to Survey Nos.667, 668, 670
\n\tand 890, for which the Committee fixed the rate at Rs.15=00 per
\n\tsq.meter and Rs.16=00 per sq.meter and, thereafter, forwarded the
\n\tsame to the State Government, wherein the Government ultimately
\n\tfixed the value at the rate of Rs.78=00 per sq.meter vide order
\n\tdated 6th August 2005 (p.366 of the paper book).\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis further submitted that in order to enable the Investigating
\n\tOfficer to record the statement of the applicant in response to the
\n\taforesaid episode, he was issued a summons on three occasions but he
\n\tfailed to appear. As a result of this, an application was made to
\n\tthe Magistrate Court for issuance of a warrant dated 31st December
\n\t2010 under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that ultimately, the applicant could be
\n\tapprehended on 14th February 2011 from a hotel called ‘Southern
\n\tRegency’, Karolbaug, New Delhi. When investigating team requested
\n\tfor the supply of identification proof submitted by him to the hotel
\n\tauthorities as well as the details as regards the guest in the
\n\tGuests Register, shockingly, what was found was that the applicant
\n\thad submitted driving licence issued by the Transport Authority at
\n\tMoga, Punjab in the name of Paramjit Singh Sandhu issued on 7th
\n\tJanuary 2010 with applicant’s photograph affixed on the left-hand
\n\tside. Details of the Guests Register of the hotel showed the said
\n\tname. Interestingly, on 7th January 2010, the applicant was in
\n\tpolice custody since he was arrested for the first time on 6th
\n\tJanuary 2010 in M.Case No.1\/2008 with reference to the alleged
\n\tcriminality in the matter of transfer of Government lands to the
\n\tmembers of Nav Nirman Charitable Trust, Bhuj (p.340 of the paper
\n\tbook).\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that in view of the above, the licence was got
\n\tcross verified through the concerned authority in Punjab which
\n\treported that the licence is a fake one.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\twould further submit that copy of the licence was also sent to the
\n\tDirectorate of Forensic Science Laboratory along with the original
\n\tphotograph for the purpose of cross verification and the said expert
\n\tbody clearly observed that, prima facie, original photograph as well
\n\tas photograph on the xerox copy of the licence matched.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis further submitted that certain goods like laptop, mobile phone,
\n\tdeed of conveyance, etc. were recovered from the possession of the
\n\tapplicant from the said hotel in New Delhi. The said goods were sent
\n\tto the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar
\n\twhich, in turn, has suggested that there were chats relating to
\n\tseeking assistance for issuance of another passport, seeking asylum
\n\toption. Deed of Conveyance suggests that the applicant is in process
\n\tof disposing of his residential flat\/ building known as ‘Bageshree’
\n\tin Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\nam conscious of the fact that while considering an application for
\nbail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons
\ntouching the merits of the case, which may prejudice the accused,
\nshould be avoided. But, there is a need to indicate in such order at
\nleast prima facie reasons concluding why bail is being granted or not
\nbeing granted. I have recorded the submissions of both the sides
\nexhaustively so that either of the side may not feel that the entire
\nmatter has not been considered in its true perspective.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\nto the object of keeping an accused person in detention during the
\ntrial, it has been stated that the object is not punishment, that to
\nkeep an accused person under arrest with the object of punishing him
\non the assumption that he is guilty even if eventually he is
\nacquitted is improper. This is most manifest. The only legitimate
\npurposes to be served by keeping person under trial in detention are
\nto prevent repetition of the offence with which he is charged where
\nthere is apparently danger of such repetition and to secure his
\nattendance at the trial. The first of those purposes clearly to some
\nextent involves an assumption of the accused’s guilt, but the very
\ntrial itself is based on a prima facie assumption of the accused’s
\nguilt and it is impossible to hold that in some circumstances it is
\nnot a proper ground to be considered. The main purpose, however, is
\nmanifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\non the facts set out in the earlier part of the order there is or is
\nnot reasonable ground for believing that the accused-applicant has
\ncommitted the offence with which he is charged is the moot question.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\nam of the opinion that there is a prima facie case against the
\naccused-applicant as set out by the prosecution. The recovery of the
\nmobile handset with a sim card registered in the name of the Vice
\nPresident of the Company from the possession of the accused-applicant
\nand the usage of the mobile with the sim card for a long period of
\ntime coupled with payment of bill of more than Rs.2 lakhs by the
\nCompany, prima facie, is suggestive of the fact of close proximity
\nbetween the accused-applicant and the Company.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\ndifferent orders of allotment of land at the rate of Rs.15=00 per
\nsq.meter in favour of the Company and the manner and method in which
\nthe orders were passed and the lands were allotted is prima facie
\nsuggestive of the fact that the accused-applicant acting corruptly
\nfavoured the Company at the cost of public exchequer and revenue. It
\nis obvious that nobody would do anything for nothing. Though there
\nmay not be any direct evidence of monetary gain derived by the
\naccused-applicant, but from the circumstances it can be inferred that
\nthe Company must have also obliged the accused-applicant in some
\nmanner or the other. The allegations of the prosecution that the
\norders of allotment of lands at the rate of Rs.15=00 per sq.meter
\nwere deliberately withhold from the Government by not forwarding the
\ncopy of the same with a guilty mind cannot also be brushed aside
\neasily.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\nthe copies of the orders of allotment of lands from time to time were
\nforwarded to the Revenue Department of the State Government or not,
\nis an issue which can be decided by the trial Court after leading
\nevidence. It is too early to prejudge this particular allegation.
\nHowever, as on today, prima facie, there are two statements of the
\nwitnesses in the charge-sheet to suggest that none of the orders were
\nforwarded to the State Government though in each of the orders a copy
\nto the Government is said to have been forwarded has been shown. It
\nis not desirable, in view of the fact that it will be for the trial
\nCourt to pronounce judgment on the merits of the evidence, for me to
\nsay anything further. But, it is necessary to say this much to make
\nit clear that I have taken into consideration the following guiding
\nprinciples. They are as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\n\treleasing the accused on bail is in any way forbidden by any
\n\tstatutory provision?\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\n\the would intimidate the witnesses or win-over them for getting
\n\tsupport to his defence and\/or for abstaining from supporting the
\n\tprosecution?\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\n\the would be available easily at the time of his trial and would
\n\tsubmit to the custody if convicted and sentenced at last or would
\n\tflee and would not be available?\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\n\the would tamper with the evidence?\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\n\the would commit like-wise or any other offence or wrong directly or
\n\tindirectly remaining behind curtain?\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\n\the would be retributive or revengeful or retaliative, i.e. whether
\n\this release will endanger safety of the persons, viz. complainant
\n\tand witness or other concerned or property?\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\n\this own safety is likely to be endangered?\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\n\tlarger good, national interest, social order, national security,
\n\tpublic safety and\/or health are likely to be jeopardised?\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tnature and gravity of offence being shocking and alarming or
\n\tbarbaric and day in and day out its effect spreads panic amongst the
\n\tpeople or section of the people or damages civilization in the
\n\tsociety turning back to jungle law?\n<\/p>\n
\tOther
\n\tpeculiar circumstances of each case appearing on record, dictating
\n\tthe exercise of discretion in particular way.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo
\nstate in short in different words, is to examine whether accused
\nafter being enlarged on bail, is likely to act or behave in a manner
\ninjurious to the interest of the prosecution or larger good, or
\nnational interest misusing the liberty granted. If the answer to any
\nof the above first nine points is in the affirmative, or the
\nconsideration of 10th point signals premonition or forewarning of any
\nevil or wrong or misfortune and puts the Court at its guard the bail
\nmust ordinarily be refused.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\nwould have leaned in exercising my discretion in favour of the
\naccused-applicant even while accepting the case of the prosecution,
\nprima facie. However, I cannot ignore the fact that the
\naccused-applicant is facing as many as five prosecutions as on today.
\nHad it been one solitary case or one solitary prosecution, the prayer
\nfor bail could have been considered. In one of the prosecutions, the
\naccused-applicant has been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the
\nHon’ble Supereme Court, but at that relevant point of time, that was
\nthe only case registered against the accused-applicant except one
\nprosecution for the offences punishable under the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act, 1988 wherein, till this date, the accused-applicant
\nhas not been arrested.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\nalso cannot ignore the fact that the accused-applicant was not
\navailable and was absconding. As the accused-applicant failed to make
\nhimself available for the purpose of interrogation, a warrant under
\nSection 70 of the Criminal Procedure Code had to be issued by the
\nconcerned Court. Ultimately, the accused-applicant could be
\napprehended on 14th February 2011 from a hotel called ‘Southern
\nRegency’, Karolbaug, New Delhi. Investigation reveals that the
\naccused-applicant rented a room in the said hotel introducing himself
\nas one Paramjit Singh Sandhu of Punjab. He also managed to obtain a
\nbogus and a false driving licence issued by the Transport Authority
\nat Moga, Punjab in the name of Paramjit Singh Sandhu with
\naccused-applicant’s photograph affixed on the left hand side. It is
\nevident to note that this particular licence was prepared on 7th July
\n2010 when the accused-applicant was actually in judicial custody in
\nconnection with one another offence in which, ultimately, the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court granted bail in September 2010. Investigation also
\nreveals that in the register maintained by the hotel authorities, the
\naccused-applicant entered his name as ‘Paramjit Singh Sandhu’ of
\nPunjab and by way of identification proof, he supplied copy of a
\nforged and false driving licence.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\nalso cannot ignore the fact that certain items like laptop, mobile
\nphone, deed of conveyance, etc. were recovered from the possession of
\nthe accused-applicant from the said hotel in New Delhi. As per the
\nreport of the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory,
\nGandhinagar, there were some chats on the laptop relating to
\nobtaining one another passport, seeking asylum option, etc. Copy of
\none deed of conveyance was also found suggestive of the intention of
\nthe accused-applicant in disposing of one of his properties at
\nAhmedabad. The tendency which the accused-applicant has exhibited or
\ndisplayed has shaken the confidence of this Court. With all these, it
\nis difficult to come to a prima facie conclusion that the
\naccused-applicant would be available for trial. Serious apprehension
\nof accused fleeing from justice has been expressed, more
\nparticularly, keeping in mind his position and status in the society
\nand the resources available with the accused-applicant.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\nmay also deal with one more submission of the accused-applicant and
\nthat is with regard to delay.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nhas been vociferously submitted that all the alleged acts of the
\naccused-applicant complained of are of the year 2003 and 2004. It has
\nbeen vociferously submitted that after six odd years, all of a
\nsudden, the accused-applicant is now being questioned as regards the
\nmanner in which he had passed the orders of allotment.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis true that the prosecution is for the acts committed during the
\nperiod between 2003 to 2006, but the prosecution itself is on the
\nfooting that the accused-applicant very cleverly did not bring to the
\nnotice of the Government the fact of huge parcels of lands allotted
\nin favour of the Company and it is only at a later stage that all
\nthese illegalities surfaced on record and that is how the
\naccused-applicant is now being prosecuted. In any case, delay in such
\ntype of cases cannot be a factor to brush aside the entire case of
\nthe prosecution. It is well-settled position of law that “crime
\nnever dies”.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever,
\nwith everything I have observed, I would be failing in my duty if I
\nignore or avoid to place the following facts on the record of this
\norder:-\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution
\n\tcase is very clear. According to the prosecution, a conspiracy was
\n\thatched and as a part of the conspiracy, the accused-applicant
\n\tpassed certain orders of allotment of lands in favour of the
\n\tCompany. It is but obvious that the accused-applicant would not,
\n\tjust for the sake of obliging the Company, must have passed the
\n\torders of allotment. The question which is haunting the mind of this
\n\tCourt is as to why no action has been taken against the Company in
\n\twhose favour the parcels of lands came to be allotted and that too
\n\thuge parcels of lands. If conspiracy is alleged then, why the
\n\tCompany is not an accused or no person from the Company has been
\n\tmade an accused. Investigation is over, charge-sheet is filed. Is it
\n\tthe case that during the entire course of investigation the
\n\tprosecution was unable to find any evidence against the Company or
\n\tany responsible person of the Company who could be a part and parcel
\n\tof the conspiracy as alleged. This question has not been
\n\tsatisfactorily answered.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf
\n\tthe State is so much concerned about the loss of public exchequer or
\n\trevenue, then why till this date no concrete steps have been taken
\n\tto recall the orders of allotment of lands. It is true that now the
\n\tCompany is having a huge manufacturing unit, but still if the
\n\tearlier allotments are illegal and are said to have been obtained by
\n\tplaying fraud and by commission of offence, then the State can
\n\tdefinitely initiate appropriate steps in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\non today, nothing concrete is coming forth on record to even, prima
\nfacie, suggest that the State Government has taken any action in this
\nregard against the Company.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nAdvocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi, during the course of his
\nsubmissions, has assured the Court that the Government will not turn
\na blind eye towards the above referred two aspects and would
\ndefinitely take appropriate steps in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\nhope and trust that the State Government takes the statement made by
\nthe learned Advocate General at the bar seriously.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\nam also conscious of the fact that all offences with which the
\naccused-applicant has been charged and for which charge-sheet has
\nbeen filed are magistrate triable offences. Magistrate courts in the
\nState of Gujarat are flooded with cases. They hardly get time to take
\nup serious and important trials like the present one. Magisterial
\ncourts should not just rest contented by conducting cases under the
\nBombay Prohibition Act, Gambling Act, Plea Bargaining, etc. As a
\nresult of which the accused keeps on languishing in jail for an
\nindefinite period of time. It is true that mere delay in concluding
\nthe trial would not by itself a ground to grant bail, but at the same
\ntime, to strike balance between personal liberty and public interest,
\nsome care has got to be taken.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nany prosecution, be it for a major offence or a minor offence, what
\nis important is not to merely arrest a person and put him behind the
\nbars. What is important for the prosecution in cases of the present
\nnature is to see as to how fast they can commence the trial, examine
\nthe witnesses and try their best to see that the charge which has
\nbeen framed against the accused-applicant is established and he is
\nappropriately punished. Object of prosecution is to penalise the
\noffender for the offence committed. This is not a case of preventive
\ndetention that the person is detained with the object that he may not
\nindulge in any illegal activity. This is a case of punitive detention
\nwhere crime is to be punished if, ultimately, proved and established.
\nThis awareness and zealousness is absolutely lacking now a days.
\nProsecution is rest contented initially by promptly arresting a
\nperson and putting him in jail. Thereafter, the entire seriousness of
\nthe prosecution case is forgotten. I once again, at the cost of
\nrepetition, state that important thing in any prosecution is to lead
\ncogent, convincing and reliable evidence before the Court as early as
\npossible by securing the attendance of the witnesses promptly and,
\nthereafter, take all legal steps possible to prove the charge against
\nthe accused. Way back in the year 1984, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
\ncase of Lt.Col.S.J.Chaudhary v\/s. State (Delhi Administration),
\nreported in AIR 1984 618, observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“We
\nthink it is an entirely wholesome practice for the trial to go on
\nfrom day-to-day. It is most expedient that the trial before the Court
\nof a Session should proceed and be dealt with continuously from its
\ninception to its finish. Not only will it result in expedition, it
\nwill also result in the elimination of manoeuvre and mischief. It
\nwill be in the interest of both the prosecution and the defence that
\nthe trial proceeds from day-to-day. It is necessary to realise that
\nSessions cases must not be tried piecemeal. Before commencing a
\ntrial, a Sessions Judge must satisfy himself that all necessary
\nevidence is available. If it is not, he may postpone the case, but
\nonly on the strongest possible ground and for the shortest possible
\nperiod. Once the trial commences, he should, expect for a very
\npressing reason which makes an adjournment inevitable, proceed de die
\nin diem until the trial is concluded.\n<\/p>\n
We
\nare unable to appreciate the difficulty said to be experienced by the
\npetitioner. It is stated that his Advocate is finding it difficult to
\nattend the Court from day-to-day. It is the duty of every Advocate,
\nwho accepts the brief in a criminal case to attend the trial from
\nday-to-day. We cannot over-stress the duty of the Advocate to attend
\nto the trial from day-to-day. Having accepted the brief, he will be
\ncommitting a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails to
\nattend.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court spoke about the practice for
\nthe trial to go on from day-to-day before a Court of Sessions. I am
\nof the view that at times taking into consideration the nature of the
\noffence and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, even a
\nMagisterial court should take up the trial on day-to-day basis and
\nexcept for a very pressing reason which makes an adjournment
\ninevitable, proceed de die in diem until the trial is concluded.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this
\nApplication and, therefore, the Application, praying for bail, is
\nrejected with the following directions to the concerned trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
\tTrial
\n\tCourt is hereby directed to see that charge is framed against the
\n\taccused-applicant and other co-accused in connection with Criminal
\n\tCase No.845\/2011 arising from I-CR No.9\/2010 registered with State
\n\tCID Crime Rajkot Zone Police Station for the offences punishable
\n\tunder Sections 217, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B
\n\tof IPC, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of
\n\tthe order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tTrial
\n\tCourt would take care to avoid granting any undue adjournments,
\n\tunless it becomes absolutely imperative.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter
\n\tthe appropriate charge is framed against the accused-applicant and
\n\tother co-accused, the trial Court is directed to take up the case on
\n\tday-to-day basis as early as possible and conclude the trial of
\n\tCriminal Case No.845\/2011 as expeditiously as possible, in any
\n\tevent, on or before 31st December 2011.\n<\/p>\n
\tParties
\n\tare directed to examine only material and most essential witnesses
\n\tand they will cooperate with the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tcase, the trial is not concluded for any reason before 31st December
\n\t2011, the accused-applicant would be at liberty to approach the
\n\ttrial Court for grant of bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\ngoes without saying that any observations touching the merits of the
\ncase are purely for the purpose of deciding the question of bail
\npending trial and shall not be construed as an expression of the
\nfinal opinion in the main matter.\n<\/p>\n
(J.B.Pardiwala,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
\tAfter
\nthe pronouncement of the order, learned counsels brought to the
\nnotice of this Court that the accused-applicant has preferred an
\napplication under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
\nbefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seeking transfer of Criminal Case
\nNo.845\/2011 instituted against him, outside the State of Gujarat. It
\nis also brought to my notice by learned counsels that notice has been
\nissued by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter will be taken up for
\nfurther hearing sometime in July 2011.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\ncounsels would submit that the directions which have been issued by
\nthis Court for expeditious disposal of the trial would be directly in
\nconflict if some orders are passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this
\nregard and virtually would render the application pending before the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court infructuous.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving
\nregard to the request of the learned counsels for the
\naccused-applicant, since the application for further hearing is
\nlikely to be taken up by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the month of July
\n2011, the directions which have been issued to the trial Court as
\nregards the expeditious commencement of the trial and its disposal
\nshall remain stayed till 31st July 2011. Rest of the order
\nshall remain as it is.\n<\/p>\n
(J.B.Pardiwala,
\nJ.) <\/p>\n
\/moin<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011 Author: J.B.Pardiwala, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/3934\/2011 38\/ 38 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 3934 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-03T10:37:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T10:37:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":8014,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T10:37:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-03T10:37:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T10:37:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011"},"wordCount":8014,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011","name":"Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T10:37:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-vs-state-on-22-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pradeep vs State on 22 June, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15121"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15121\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}